But the one thing we know about the adviser is that he is untrustworthy. He's stabbing Palin and McCain in the back. Why take his word for anything?

She doesn't have a "relationship of trust" with anyone, not even her own husband? Aw, come on, that just reads as implausible on its face. And "diva"? She's the candidate. She should be demanding, and she should be served.

Who is this weasel, calling her a "diva"? What are his political interests? I think they show through as he whines about Palin's future prospects on the eve of McCain's probable loss.

IN THE COMMENTS: jdeeripper said:

"Diva" is a sexist, homophobic code word, a dog whistle whose use is cynically calculated to play upon deep seated sexual fear and patriarchal hatred.

Simon said:

Why would we not assume that CNN is lying? Is there any reason - any reason at all - to believe that there was an unnamed source who spoke to "Dana Bash, Peter Hamby and John King [of] CNN"? That this unnamed source said what is alleged? That what is alleged is even true? Because we think that they're "professionals"? Who is still malingering under the sad delusion at this late hour that the media is throwing straight dice?

Not me. A controversial claim resting on attribution to an unnamed source, that serves the agenda of the agency? Why should I not think it's a lie? I say they made it up. Name the source and give us the video of them saying it, or tell us why we shouldn't think you're lying. You don't get to behave the way you've behaved and ask for trust.

97 comments:

Sounds like someone who figured that the hick should be *grateful* for his advice.

I've met people like that, too.

They get really drastically upset when you aren't grateful after all.

Other people with advice, the people who respect you, don't get in a hissy-tantrum when you disagree with them because they've never set themselves up in a place where they feel like your benevolent better.

I am not convinced McCain will lose.I believe the McCain- Palin ticket will win the day.I am also of the opinion the loud mouthed aid is Davis. You know, the one who at one time worked at either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac? Yeah, that one.

Why would we not assume that CNN is lying? Is there any reason - any reason at all - to believe that there was an unnamed source who spoke to "Dana Bash, Peter Hamby and John King [of] CNN"? That this unnamed source said what is alleged? That what is alleged is even true? Because we think that they're "professionals"? Who is still malingering under the sad delusion at this late hour that the media is throwing straight dice?

Not me. A controversial claim resting on attribution to an unnamed source, that serves the agenda of the agency? Why should I not think it's a lie? I say they made it up. Name the source and give us the video of them saying it, or tell us why we shouldn't think you're lying. You don't get to behave the way you've behaved and ask for trust.

"Diva" is a sexist, homophobic code word, a dog whistle whose use is cynically calculated to play upon deep seated sexual fear and patriarchal hatred.

"Diva" is also being used here to counter the image of Palin as a hockey mom from small town Wasilla. It's part of an attempt to distance her from single White women voters trapped in dead end low pay jobs.

The unnamed McCain adviser is of course a nonexistent prop for another MSM anti Palin/pro Obama hit piece.

Besides, if Palin was a true Diva Andrew Sullivan would have a thrill running up his leg at the thought of her election.

Journalists lie. They make things up. They fabricate sources and quotes. Every once in while they get caught and it is a big scandal. But it happens every time they put pen to paper. They are not to be trusted. You should not believe anything they say unless it is live. They are scum.

I suspect the media aren't certain. Look at how desperate their behavior has become: Somewhere in the back of their heads, an alarm bell is going off. A little voice is saying: if they win, we're f*cked." (They're in New York, so they'd say "f*cked" rather than screwed or hosed or somesuch; saying "fuck" every thirty seconds, even in situations without an emotional urgency to demand it, is a way to show how sophisticated you are.) Their contempt for Palin is now amplified by a fearful urge to self preservation, the realization that in four years, they'll all be working for wire services or flipping burgers.

Trooper - journalists are worse. When lawyers lie, they're subject to direct and indirect sanctions. When journalists lie - except in those haltingly rare situations where the lie embarasses the paper and fails to serve its editorial board's political interest - there's no sanction, and so no incentive not to make up quotes. Moreover, lawyers can't rest a case on "unnamed sources" which limits the opportunity to lie; imagine the defense counsel says "ladies and gentleman of the jury, my client couldn't possibly have killed his wife, because unnamed sources place him twenty miles away"!

I agree with Simon. I find it interesting that CNN isn't looking for the frustrated with Obama aide. There has to be dozens of them looking to bitch. I mean please, Biden has F'd up sooooooo many times. If he wasn't on the Obama ticket, the media would have made him the laughing stock. Biden is lucky he has cover as Obama's BFF.

I get tired of the un-named source routine. "some people are saying...."

If you can't name your source, you shouldn't have a story. This ain't the fucking Watergate break-in (I'm in New York, therefore sophisticated enough to say "fuck" a lot). This is the opinion of some nadless slighted pussy, if it's not completely fabricated. Why is this person's opinion news and why does this person's opinion deserve the cover of anonymity?

And where are the fucking rats in the Barack Obama campaign? You know they exist- even Jesus had one among his disciples. Why aren't we hearing the shit they're shoveling about Obama? Oh! Right! That might, you know, hurt Obama's campaign.

That comment about her family is pretty lame. No relationships of trust with her family? Even if that is true - which I find hard to believe - it was way below the belt to say that on record to the press.

"With 10 days until Election Day, long-brewing tensions between ... [Palin] and key aides to Sen. John McCain have become so intense, they are spilling out in public, sources say."

Is that a lie, or just bad writing? If the "long-brewing tensions" were "spilling out in public," there wouldn't be any need for "sources" to say it. By definition, something that spills out into public would be observed by the public, and could be supported by on the record sources. The fact that you have to quote unnamed sources proves that they haven't spilled out in public. So is that just a poorly-executed rhetorical flourish or an inconsistency? If the latter, that further injures the crediblity of the report. If the former, it demonstrates that the writers are willing to place rhetorical style over accuracy, which calls into doubt everything else in the article, because to the extent it's all attributed to anonymous sources, we can't verify the information to see where else rhetorical preference has introduced distortion.

A source close to Andrew Sullivan has revealed to me Sullivan's sordid past as a Nazi spy, cocaine fiend and pyromaniac. The source also tells of Sullivan's all-male parties in Provincetown where he entertained guests by doing terrible things to beagles with a fork. Since Sullivan has yet to release his medical, criminal and psychiatric records, nor his beagle's veterinary records, none of these allegations can be independently verified but the source, being a person from Sullivan's inner circle, is credible enough that we thought these allegations should be aired.

Wow, that Sarah! She's so good at hiding her "diva" when in public - I mean, look at her in the crowds! Diving in and mingling with the common folk! That must be excruciating for her, but she hides it well. And remarkable, isn't it, that a woman who takes no advice from anyone has managed to come off so warm, genuine, and appealing?

What about that family, huh? How they manage to look like a very close, well-adjusted, loving group, despite Sarah not trusting any of them! She's got them all trained!

Ann wrote: But the one thing we know about the adviser is that he is untrustworthy. He's stabbing Palin and McCain in the back. Why take his word for anything?

Using the above reasoning, we should assume that all 'Whistleblowers' are untrustworthy since they are 'stabbing' their employer/boss 'in the back'. My position is, we should maintain a healthy skepticism of the press, the source, and the candidates. As for Simon's assertion, I am uncomfortable generalizing to the degree he is, particularly his claim that journalists are worse than lawyers (or folks in other professions) and have fewer checks than lawyers. I have had personal experiences with both lawyers and journalists lying....the lawyer ended up receiving a national award for his work on a case I was involved with. The lawyer and media used one another to promulgate the lies. Both were proven wrong years later....but by then, it was too late. By the way, it was also a journalist who ended up following up a few years later that exposed the lawyer and media's earlier lies. Now there are some journalists and lawyers that I know very well that I have a lot of confidence in...

Typically, I'm just not able to discern who is lying or telling the truth in situations that I am not directly involved. I tend to try to get multiple, independent, data sources that either converge or diverge before arriving at conclusions.

On the other hand, speculations, generalizations, rumor, and self-fulfilling assertions are so much more interesting and satisfying.

I was watching CNN when they broadcast this report, and my thought was who can trust much of anything" (I was going to leave out the "much," but thought MM might be reading this :) that is reported by the MSM?

Hold it now! Seymour Hersh has the market on unnamed sources! if Andrew Sullivan is going to do any more of this unnamed sourcing business, he better make sure that he isn't plagiarizing Seymour Hersh or stepping on Hersh's toes, for goodness sakes!

The MSM knows how much crap they're sitting on, how much is leaking through the cracks in spite of their sitting on it. They're clearly worried, and they should be. There's every likelihood McCain and Palin will pull this off and if they do the MSM will have bet and lost and forfeited much.

After the last election, it was amazing how many Democrats were suddenly willing to admit that Kerry was a long harumph of phlegm as a candidate and that his "outspoken" wife was flaky. If Obama wins, I predict just the reverse will happen with Palin. She's an extrordinarily likable and sympathetic public figure. If Obama wins, we will perhaps get a few more sympathetic stories about her. (If she wins, expect more in depth coverage of her intelligence and amniotic sac.)....If someone portrayed Obama as lazy and stupid, I would call them a racist. The portrayal of Sarah as a dumb, clothes hungry diva is sexist. Do they themselves even believe this crap?

I have no doubt CNN's made up most of this story. Sarah Palin selection proved that the McCain people can be loyal. I am sure there are tons of frustrated McCain advisers out there. Can you blame them though? If MSM is the only source of my news, I would be depressed too. On the serious note, MSM is playing on a very dangerous territory here. I don't think MSM can survive in current state if McCain wins. BTW, McCain will use. The polls are not sampled right. They are sampling way too many Acorn voters. Did you read the Times story that only one third of the Acorn registrations were valid first time voters? Even if 0 were to win, the MSM is doomed nonetheless. Don't you think they will have to keep on lying for him? I don't think they can detach themselves from 0 without a mea culpa of some kind. That would mean that MSM will have to accept that they covered for 0 big time.

Here’s a sample of a MSM reporting of what clearly seems like a positive McCain story. It should have been “The Buzz: McCain has Florida in his bag.”

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article871689.ece

The Buzz: Early vote leaning Obama's direction?

After four days of early voting last week, it looked likely that Barack Obama had taken the lead in ballots cast in Florida. We don't know how they voted, of course, but Democrats had cast 653,573 votes — 316,853 absentee mail votes and 336,720 votes at early voting locations. Republicans had cast 652,648 votes — 457,395 absentee and 195,253 early votes.A St. Petersburg Times-Bay News 9-Miami Herald poll found that among voters who said they intended to vote on Election Day, John McCain had a 10-point advantage.

Given the horrible way Palin was rolled out by the McCain campaign, is there any reason she should trust their judgement? Going against that might seem divaish to the campaign, but it might also be better instincts.

Why aren't we hearing the shit they're shoveling about Obama?

Nothing succeeds like success. Who wants to be the Obama advisor who says something bad and is blamed in inner Democratic circles for failure? I suspect that, despite the whistling past the graveyard evident in the comments here, Republicans who are pessimistic about McCain's chances have freer reign to bitch because if McCain fails, well there is plenty of blame to go around. Starting with the Republican whipping boy, the MSM.

"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," said another McCain source with direct knowledge of the process to prepare Palin after she was picked. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."

My personal theory is that someone like Joe Lieberman was appalled during the debate prep, and has chatted with people like David Brooks who became pretty suddenly convinced she was a genuine disaster. I don't think that came from her few public performances - even the dreadful Couric interview. I think someone told them "no, that wasn't a media-induced block: these are subjects she hasn't considered at all." That's my feeling.

Given that, the diva thing has to be jarring as hell - she doesn't have any idea how unprepared she is, and is extremely confident. I admire her moxie, but damn. She made me use the word moxie for chrissake.

I think what she is spending on her wardrobe alone classifies her as a diva! but she definitely has an agenda, maybe it's to get her own talk TV show! She probably just wants to counter act all the liberal illuminati media out there. McCain is going to lose and i think a very interesting thing will be to see what Palin does from here. Reality TV show, priceless!

Using the above reasoning, we should assume that all 'Whistleblowers' are untrustworthy since they are 'stabbing' their employer/boss 'in the back'.

No, we shouldn't. 'Whistleblowers' are those who expose (possibly) criminal or unethical behavior. The anonymous source here is doing neither, but rather advancing his/her own importance. A true whistleblower is trustworthy because she/he is loyal to the best interests of the organization in terms of its relationship to the greater community in which it exists. That is not the case here.

Um, last I checked, all those signs around town say "McCain-Palin". So, yes, in that context, Palin is the candidate and the advisor is not. She is the one who would serve in office and he is not. She is the one whose name would go in the history books and his would not. Are you following me here?

McCain is at the top of the ticket, obviously, but it's a two candidate ticket, as are all presidential tickets.

I like your reasoning. There's no reason to trust the word of someone who betrays the trust of the McCain campaign by disclosing information harmful to it. Particularly, when the disclosure is that this demonstrably untrustworthy person isn't trusted.

That said, I think there's a germ of truth buried in this pile of horse manure. You will recall a few weeks ago when the big-time journalists were each putting Mrs. Palin in the barrel and getting away with "gotcha" journalism? And the campaign was hiding Mrs. Palin from sight? They were doing their level best to make her into Quayle v2.0. We were hearing folks who knew Mrs. Palin saying they weren't seeing the woman they know. The refrain was "Free Sarah Palin."

And things have gotten better. She's doing what we hoped she would just after her Dayton speech. Now, I may not understand presidential politics but it seems that the chain of command goes POTUS, then VPOTUS, then the minions. If this is true then the VPOTUS can only go rogue when he says derogatory things about the top dog on the ticket. You know, things like saying that foreign powers will "test" and "challenge" the guy who'll do what the American public won't like.

This source must be a very quick judge of character if he can tell all the way down here in the lower 48 in 10 weeks that she and her family don't trust each other. I'm still trying to figure out my wife's family after 35 years.

Boy do I agree with Simon. I think we should assume CNN is lying unless they can prove the contrary. I think that's what we should be assuming all along when "sources" request anonymity.

It's one thing for an anonymous source to blow the whistle on a crime. That's the noble cause into which reporters wrap their protection of sources. It's something else for someone to go to a reporter and basically say, "not for attribution, I hate the bitch." What public interest is served by protecting a source who just wants to get away with insulting someone behind their back? CNN viewers should demand that they name names. It should be the policy from now on that no news entity will protect a news source's anonymity unless his or her life or health is at risk. If the McCain aide fears being fired or having his career end for making these comments, I think CNN should make his nightmare come true.

Little Miss Sullivan once again commenting on speculation and conjecture without any substantive or coherent corroboration of his source of information. Well, this proves it for me. He is finally making a play against Perez Hilton as an entertainment insider. Oh my, this will become one super-duper cat-fight. Rawr, hiss, hiss.

I'm reminded of that sweet little interview after one of Todd's race wins... the interviewer asking her if she was going to let him race... (typical "wife rules the roost" joke that I hate) and she laughs and says... it wasn't up to her, he'd do what he wanted to do, but that he really likes racing so that meant she supported that.

He seems to have the same attitude toward her interests, including this one.

I thought that was really healthy.

And one does need to figure... for almost their entire marriage he's been working away from home one week off and on again (or some similar schedule). I've no doubt she took care of business in his absence without a constant, "I've got to check with Todd."

I've no doubt at all that she is confident making decisions without first gathering approval.

(At one time or another my husband and I have both purchased houses that the other had not even seen... I don't understand controlling relationships or personalities.)

he is the one whose name would go in the history books and his would not. Are you following me here?

Perfectly. Sarah Palin has no respect for message discipline, doesn't have the honor to go down with the ship, is already looking to take advantage of the spotlight to set her own table... and she's history.

McCain and Schmidt gave her an opportunity way before she'd earned it, and she's going to throw them under the bus. That's not mavericky; it's just disloyal.

While I certainly wouldn't put it past CNN to just make stuff up (we do live in a post-Rathergate world, after all...) it wouldn't surprise me if the story were true. There's been enough public ship-jumping that an anonymous one now and again shouldn't be shocking.

What really gets me though is the one undeniable positive (Palin) for the McCain campaign is the one that keeps getting slammed by all the anti-McCain people.

(And preemptively, I know a lot of Coastal Elites can't stand the hick with the funny accent, but she goes over like gangbusters with other hicks with funny accents, each of whom also gets a vote. Without them McCain wouldn't stand a chance, and she's bringing them in, whether y'all like it or not. McCain was never going to get your vote. Now he might get the votes from all your ignorant cousins back home. So yeah, you hate her, but she's sho'nuff positive for McCain.)

Ahem.

Anyway, all this Palin bashing seems almost coordinated, somehow.

Hey, Obama is a Chicago pol. Everyone knows how money and politics mix in Chicago. You don't suppose....

""Diva" is a sexist, homophobic code word, a dog whistle whose use is cynically calculated to play upon deep seated sexual fear and patriarchal hatred."

Bull$hit. A diva is simply a famous female opera singer, and yes, SOME OF THEM were notoriously temperamental. Anyone who reads sexism and homophobia into the word is an idiot, not to mention gutter-minded. I'm a musician with over thirty years experience and two degrees in the field, so I know of WTF I speak.

I can't believe you highlighted that comment. It's disgraceful.

Back to the topic at hand. Let's suspend our disbelief and ass-you-me that this story is 100% true (Even though the quip about Palin not having trusting relationships within her family is an obvious lie). How is it, exactly, that a rising political star like Sarah Palin trusting her own political instincts above those of the "misadvisors" who botched her rollout a bad thing?

Hucbald--you are certainly correct in your use of diva with respect musicians (Maria Callas being my favorite diva). But I think your sensitivity meter is set too high--My take was that Jdeeriper was deploying a bit of sarcasm aimed at the left's use of racism.

Sarah Palin a diva who doesn't take advice? That's BS that runs counter to the way Palin governs. The word on her is that she'll take the best advice she can get, even setting aside her own proposals, in order to achieve her objective. That's not somebody who doesn't take advice.

That's not somebody who doesn't have relationships of trust, either. For Palin to select somebody's policy proposal over her own, she'd have to trust that the ramifications of the policy will serve the ends she wants without adverse effect.

As for no relationship of trust with her family, that's a really fat joke. Look at the pix with Palin and her daughter greeting each other. More significantly, look at Palin's relationship with her husband who is relaxed enough to let her do her own thing. Watch Greta van Susteren's interview with Todd Palin; that guy isn't a panty-waist whose wife henpecks him and rides roughshod.

I'd think that Sarah Palin is demanding. It means that she knows what she wants and won't settle for less than that. You don't get to be a governor who has cleaned house, given your electorate a fat tax break, broken the bones of the good ol' boys, managed to finalize a trans-Canada gas pipeline deal and not be demanding.

As for this 'diva' thing ... it sounds like CNN crap to me. CNN and the rest of the MSM have no standing to claim our trust because they have violated it so blatantly and remorselessly.

Lemme add two things: " Simon said...Original George said... "The source is Todd."

The campaign has to put a cramp in the nookie, doesn't it." —This was the funniest danged thing on the board.

Second thing: I don't believe this crap about Palin being hard to bring up to speed. She was an Honor Society student in her day. IOW, she's not a dummy. Moreover, she's a brilliant governor who has advanced from the PTA BECAUSE she picks up things quickly and folks regard her as a natural leader.

This nonsense about Palin not being a quick study sounds like the usual Democrat meme about GOP candidates: always dumb as a box of rocks. The repetition of this absurd meme make me believe this story is a CNN invention.

I'm not surprised that we're seeing these sort of backstabbing leaks from the McCain campaign.

It's a product of the fact that McCain has no coherent ideology or message- he's a RINO whose "maverick" positions on immigration, global warming, etc, have always been perfectly aligned with that of the liberal elite. So naturally most of those working for him don't have any coherent ideology either- most are Country Club Republican types who are just in it to advance their careers. If the GOP nominee had been someone running on a traditional conservative platform, like Romney or Fred, there would be a lot less of this dissention in the face of defeat, because the team would then be staffed with movement conservatives, united by the goal of advancing their common belief system, a cause which would continue even after the campaign was over.

The story is from CNN, so the odds of it being pure fiction, made up by a bored reporter is about 50%. Add another 40% chance that it distorts the unnamed advisor's words and the 9% chance that the reporter didn't understand what the aid was saying and you get a 1% chance that there's any story there to begin with. Then if that 1% chance is in effect you have to estimate that there is a 90% chance the unnamed aide is lying or distorting the actual facts. In other words, there is one chance in a 1000 that this meaningless story is true and about 1 in a million that it has any meaning whatsoever.

The lapdog media is so deeply invested in Obama that they will do anything to drag him into the White House. If he wins, and is the disaster he promises to be, nothing will save the old media. They have squandered the trust of anyone who is paying attention. And it's not the bias. Blog readers understand and accept bias. It's part of a point of view. It's the lies, especially the lies about the bias.

I want a partisan media. I just want them to admit it so I can judge their stories fairly.

Look, not all of the Palin grumbling has anything to do with her accent, bio, looks, etc. by a long shot. I'm originally from Maine, which has two extremely effective women senators (Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins). Neither one has a ready-for-prime-time demeanor/voice, and no one cares a bit. They're sharp, common-sense women.

Palin claimed she hadn't really given much thought to the war in Iraq, which by itself is a huge problem for me. For those of us who tilt to McCain on the basis of foreign policy and experience, she is a disappointment.

Palin has turned Sullivan into a seventh grade girl. "Omigod ya'll, Palin is a freak! Her clothes are like so ugly, and her family is totally weird, and everyone I know thinks she's a bitch and a dumbass. Ugh! I am so not even sitting at the same table as that hick when we go to lunch. and anyone who does sucks as bad as she does!"

"she is the one whose name would go in the history books and his would not. Are you following me here?"

"Perfectly. Sarah Palin has no respect for message discipline, doesn't have the honor to go down with the ship, is already looking to take advantage of the spotlight to set her own table... and she's history."

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was responding to in which you claimed she wasn't a candidate. She obviously is. Completely changing the topic is not a very convincing response. And then there's the additional problem that the response doesn't make a whole lot of sense, even on its own terms. You might have a point to argue, but you're not doing it very well (although the mixed metaphor salad you've whipped up is quite tasty).

At what point has "go down with the ship" become the standard for political loyalty? Has it occurred to any of you bright-bulbs that McCain may have picked a rising-star out of loyalty to the party (and it could have been Jindal but for an impending hurricane the week of the announcement) for the express purpose of giving a new face a great deal of exposure? There is no way he could have won with an *old* face (not anticipating the economic crisis (as no one did) and choosing someone who could speak well on that, which not a one of the four running can) and he got a huge benefit from picking her.

...how is not trusting her husband, who she married hastily after he knocked her up, 'impossible on its face'?

They were high school sweethearts... her oldest is 19?.. which means she didn't get "knocked up" until she was 25... what are you spewing about? They *hastily* were a couple for SIX YEARS before they *hastily* got married.

McCain picked Palin because she was outspoken and didn't need sycophantic whining underlings telling her what to do like a puppet.

I'm continually amazed at what suckers people are concerning leadership. Apparently when someone actually displays leadership skills without being "advised", they are arrogant divas. Never mind that most these critics are bitter, mid-level bureaucrats who have a very narrow view of the world. They've been slighted and their voice must be heard! (Having the media embellish those complaints and ignore the conflicts of interest only makes it all the better.)

Newsflash, most leakers aren't altruistic. Neither are most reporters. The only question is who is the host and who is the parasite?

The press has long ago lost any credibility and should be attacked as the cancerous virus in the body politic that it has become. Conservative should never agree to any interviews that are not live and unedited. I would scorn and attack them at every turn. Millions upon millions agree with me. The final fraud that Dan Rather perpetrated was just one of many in a long and honored career. He was considered among the best and the brightest and was shown to be a lying sack of shit just like every other so called journalist. I am sure an honest examination of almost any press account will show the same results. They are entitled to the protection of the first amendment. Luckily they are a dying institution and will soon go the way of horse drawn carriages and whalebone corsets.

Since we're now talking about media fraud, remember Uncle Walter's big fraud and outright lie during the Tet Offensive in 1968. Cronkite said that the USA had lost Tet, we're finished in his mind. LBJ said that since he'd lost Cronkite he was lost too.

Years later we found out the truth that Cronkite was then and remains a Socialist. Also, we found out, but not through the media, that Tet was a major USA military victory even though it became a psychological lose in fact; the NVA and VC were the military losers in Tet.

Lastly, thanks to the media, we didn't learn until much later that ARVN kicked NVA butt in 1974 only to lose because Congress cut off funding for the South Vietnamese; they were left without the means to carry on the fight and collapsed in early 1975.

I never said she wasn't "a" candidate. I said she wasn't the candidate. There's a vast gulf between the indefinite and definite article, and trying to play fast and loose with it doesn't help your case any.

She should try paying more attention to Karl Rove, a guy who knows a thing or two about winning national elections:

"It is a sign of undisciplined people who do not have the loyalty that they ought to have to the candidate whom they're serving. And it's -- it's a sad sight to see."